Karnataka High Court
Sri.Ashok N Joshi S/O Narayan Rao vs The Director on 8 December, 2020
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.106179 OF 2018 C/W WRIT PETITION
Nos. 103782 OF 2019, 106753 OF 2018, 102838 OF 2018,
113094 OF 2014, 114531 OF 2019, 102837 OF 2018,
114853 OF 2019 AND 108643 OF 2018 (S-RES)
IN W.P.No. 106179/2018
BETWEEN:
PROF. DATTATREYA
S/O. MANAKOJICHOUDHARI
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
R/O. PLOT 26, ADARSH NAGAR, 7TH CROSS
HINDWADI, BELAGAVI - 590 011.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DATTATREYA (PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN
ALL INDIA FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AICTE)
NELSON MANDALA MARG
VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI - 110 070.
2. THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION (DTE)
TANTRIKSHIKSHANA BHAVAN, PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. THE REGISTER
VISWESWARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY (VTU)
JNANA SANGAM, MACHHE, BELAGAVI - 590 018.
2
5. THE CHAIRMAN
KARNATAKA LAW SOCIETY
POST BOX NO. 512, KLS CAMPUS
TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI - 590 006.
6. THE PRINCIPAL
GOGTEINSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
UDYAMBAG, BELAGAVI - 590 008.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R-2 & R-3
SRI. ANOOP DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4
SRI. ANANT MANDAGI, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PROMOD.N. KATHAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R-5
SRI. S.S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 & R-6
R-1 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
RELIEVING ORDERS PASSED BY RESPONDENT-5 DATED:
29.05.2018 KLS/0-4/2018-19/276 VIDE ANNEXURE-'A' AND ALLOW
ME TO CONTINUE MY SERVICES UPTO 60 YEARS AS PER
EXISTING STATE GOVT.NORMS.
IN W.P.No. 103782/2019
BETWEEN:
SHRI.MADHAV
S/O. DATTARAYA DESHPANDE
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
OCC: NIL R/O. # 766/1B, CCB No. 316
3RD CROSS, BHAGYANAGAR
DIST: BELAGAVI - 590 006.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA TECHNICAL EDUCATION BOARD
NEAR MAHARANI COLLEGE, PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU.
3
2. THE REGISTRAR
VISHWESHWARAIAH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
(V.T.U.) MACHCHE AT BELAGAVI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. THE CHAIRMAN
KARANATAKA LAW SOCIETY
POST BOX NO. 512, TILAKWADI
DIST: BELAGAVI .
4. THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA LAW SOCIETY
POST BOX NO. 512, TILKWADI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. THE PRINCIPAL
KLS GOGTE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
DIST: BELAGAVI.
6. THE CHAIRMAN
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
(AICTE)
7TH FLOOR, CHANDERLOK BUILDING
JANAPATH, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANOOP G.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-6
SRI. S.S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 &R-4
SRI. ANANT MANDAGI, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRAMOD.N.KATHAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3
R-1 SERVED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
RELIEVING ORDER DATED: 26.09.2018 IN NUMBER
REF.KLS/04/2018-19/900, VIDE ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT AND ETC.
IN W.P.No. 106753/2018
BETWEEN:
SHRI.VIVEK.K NADPUROHIT
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC- RTD. MECHANIC
R/O. KAMADENU APARTMENT, BHAGYA NAGAR
7TH CROSS PLOT NO.9 1ST FLORE
BELAGAVI - 590 006. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMESH I ZIRALI, ADVOCATE))
4
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA TECHNICAL EDUCATION BOARD
NEAR PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU.
2. THE REGISTRAR
VISHWESHWARAIAH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
(V.T.U.) MACHCHE AT BELAGAVI
DIST: BELAGAVI - 590 008.
3. THE CHAIRMAN
KARANATAKA LAW SOCIETY
BELAGAVI - 590 008.
4. THE PRINCIPAL
KARNATAKA LAW SOCIETY GIT
BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R-1
SRI. PRATAPSING JADHAV, ADVOCATE FOR R-2
SRI. ANANT MANDAGI, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRAMOD.N.KATHAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3
SRI. S.S.GUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
RELIEVING ORDER DATED: 26.06.2018, VIDE ANNEXURE-F
NUMBERED AT REF: KLS/0-4/2018-19/410, ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ETC.
IN W.P.No. 102838/2018
BETWEEN:
SHRI.SHIVAJI
S/O KALLAPPA PAWALE
AGE- 58 YEARS, OCC-RTD
2ND DIVISION ASST. AT KLS BELAGAVI
R/O BEHIND SENT. MERRY ENGLISH SCHOOL
H.NO. N/13, ANAGOL, BELAGAVI - 590 007.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMESH I ZIRALI, ADVOCATE))
5
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA TECHNICAL EDUCATION BOARD
NEAR PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU.
2. THE REGISTRAR
VISHWESHWARAIAH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
(V.T.U.) BELAGAVI - 590 008.
3. THE CHAIRMAN
KARANATAKA LAW SOCIETY
BELAGAVI - 590 008.
4. THE PRINCIPAL
GOGTE COLLEGE OF COMMERCE
BELAGAVI - 580 008.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANOOP DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2
SRI. ANANT MANDAGI, SR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRAMOD N. KATHAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3
R-1 SERVED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
RELIEVING ORDER REF: KLS/0-2/2016-17/1185, ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ETC.
IN W.P.No. 113094/2014
BETWEEN:
SRI.VITTAL RAYAPPA SAIBANNAVAR
AGE: 59 YEARS
OCC: PEON-CSE DEPARTMENT
K.L.S GOGTE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
UDYAMBAG, BELAGAUM.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VITTAL RAYAPPA SAIBANNAVAR- PARTY IN PERSON)
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA TECHNICAL EDUCATION BOARD
NEAR MAHARANI COLLGE, PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU.
6
2. THE REGISTRAR
VISHWESHWARAIAH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
(V.T.U.) MACHCHE AT BELAGAVI
DIST: BELAGAVI
3. THE CHAIRMAN
KARANATAKA LAW SOCIETY
POST BOX NO. 512
TILAKWADI, BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R-1
SRI. ANOOP DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2
SRI. ANANT MANDAGI, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRAMOD.N.KATHAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO CONTINUE THE SERVICE OF THE
PETITIONER TILL THE AGE OF 60 YEARS BY CONSIDERING THE
REPRESENTATION DATED: 25.09.2014 AND 28.07.2008 VIDE
ANNEXURE-C AND D BY REFERRING GOVERNMENT ORDER
DATED: 28.07.2008, VIDE ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT AND ETC.
IN W.P.No. 114531/2019
BETWEEN:
SHRENIK APPAYYA SUPPANAVAR
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: RETD MECHANIC
R/O. 308,GANAPAT GALLI, MAJAGAON
MANDOLI, UDYAMBAG, BELAGAVI
TAL/DIST: BELAGAVI. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMESH I ZIRALI, ADVOCATE))
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA TECHNICAL EDUCATION BOARD
NEAR PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU.
2. THE REGISTRAR
VISHWESHWARAIAH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
(V.T.U.) BELAGAVI - 590 008.
7
3. THE CHAIRMAN
KARANATAKA LAW SOCIETY
POST BOX NO. 512, TILAKWADI
BELAGAVI - 590 006.
4. THE PRINCIPAL
GOGTE COLLEGE OF COMMERCE
BELAGAVI - 580 008.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R-1
SRI. ANOOP DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2
SRI. ANANT MANDAGI, SR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRAMOD N. KATHAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED RELIVING ORDER
BEARING NO. KLS/04/2018-19/1817 DATED: 26.03.2019 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
IN W.P.No. 102837/2018
BETWEEN:
SHRI.SHRIPAL
S/O MALLAPPA BIDARALLI
AGE- 58 YEARS, OCC-RTD
ASST. INSTRUCTOR IN MACHANICAL
R/O BEHIND SENT. MERRY ENGLISH SCHOOL
H.NO. N/13, ANAGOL, BELAGAVI - 590 007.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMESH I ZIRALI, ADVOCATE))
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA TECHNICAL EDUCATION BOARD
NEAR PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU.
2. THE REGISTRAR
VISHWESHWARAIAH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
(V.T.U.) BELAGAVI - 590 008.
3. THE CHAIRMAN
KARANATAKA LAW SOCIETY
BELAGAVI - 590 008.
8
4. THE PRINCIPAL
KARNATAKA LAW SOCIETY GIT
BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R-1
SRI. ANOOP DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2
SRI. ANANT MANDAGI, SR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRAMOD N. KATHAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
RELIEVING ORDER REF: KLS/0-4/2017-18/1162, ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ETC.
IN W.P.No. 114853/2019
BETWEEN:
SRI. ASHOK N JOSHI
S/ O NARAYAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
OCC: NILL,
FLAT NO. 101, RADHA GOVIND PARK
APARTMENT, A WING , S.V.ROAD
DIST: BELAGAVI - 590 006.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA TECHNICAL EDUCATION BOARD
NEAR MAHARANI COLLEGE, PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU.
2. THE REGISTRAR
VISHWESHWARAIAH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
(V.T.U.) MACHCHE AT BELAGAVI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. THE CHAIRMAN
KARANATAKA LAW SOCIETY
POST BOX NO. 512, TILAKWADI
DIST: BELAGAVI .
9
4. THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA LAW SOCIETY
POST BOX NO. 512, TILKWADI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. THE PRINCIPAL
KLS GOGTE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
DIST: BELAGAVI.
6. THE CHAIRMAN
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
(AICTE)
7TH FLOOR, CHANDERLOK BUILDING
JANAPATH, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
7. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R-1 & R-7
SRI. S.S.GUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 TO R-5
SRI. ANOOP G.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-6)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE
RELIEVING ORDER DATED: 24.05.2019 IN NUMBER
REF.KLS/04/204/2018-19/290 VIDE ANNEXURE-G, PASSED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND ETC.
IN W.P.No. 108643/2018
BETWEEN:
SRI.R.B. MALIHALLI
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: RETD
KLS GOGTE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
UDYAMBAG, BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE))
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
M.S. BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU.
10
2. THE DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA TECHNICAL EDUCATION BOARD
NEAR MAHARANI COLLEGE
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU.
3. THE REGISTRAR
VISHWESHWARAIAH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
(V.T.U.) BELAGAVI - 590 008.
4. THE CHAIRMAN
KARANATAKA LAW SOCIETY
POST BOX NO. 512, TILAKWADI
BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R-1& R-2
SRI. ANOOP DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-3
SRI. ANANT MANDAGI, SR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRAMOD N. KATHAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED RESOLUTION AT ANNEXURE-'H' AND THE LETTER
REF KLS/RES/1637/2011-12 DATED: 21.02.2012 AT ANNEXURE-H1
AND ALLOWING THE AGE OF RETIREMENT TO THE PETITIONER
AT 60 YEARS AND SETTLE THE PENSIONARY AND MONETARY
BENEFITS ALONG WITH ARREARS WITH ADMISSBLE INTERST
THEREON WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF ORDER.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE BEING HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.09.2020, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:-
11
ORDER
In these batch of writ petitions, W.P.No.106179/2018, W.P.No.103782/2019 and W.P.No.114853/2019 have been filed by the respective petitioners who were employed as teaching staff of the Karnataka Law Society (for short 'KL Society'), Belagavi.
W.P.No.106753/2018, W.P.No.102837/2018, W.P.No.102838/2018, W.P.No.114531/2019, W.P.No.113094/2014 and W.P.No.108643/2018 have been filed by the respective petitioners who were employed as non-teaching staff of the Karnataka Law Society, Belagavi.
2. Brief facts leading to the cases are as under:-
Teaching Staff In W.P.No.106179/2018 In this petition, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor in Computer Sciences in Gogte Institute of Technology (for short 'GIT'), Belagavi which is run and managed by the Karnataka Law Society, Belagavi on contract basis w.e.f. 01.01.2004 in terms of the appointment order dated 30.03.2004. The confirmation 12 order was issued on 17.12.2005 in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 04.06.2005. On 18.04.2011, the Management re- designated the petitioner as an Associate Professor in Computer Science Department w.e.f. 01.01.2010. Meanwhile, the Government of Karnataka by its order dated 28.07.2008 as per G.O.No.DPAR 44 SRA 2008 BAN dated 28.07.2008 increased the age of superannuation for a Government servant from 58 years to 60 years w.e.f. 17.07.2008. On 29.05.2018, the KL Society issued the impugned relieving order dated 29.05.2018 informing the petitioner that having regard to the fact that his Date of Birth was 01.06.1960, the petitioner would attain the age of superannuation upon completion of 58 years on 31.05.2018 and that he would be relieved from that day.
The petitioner got issued a lawyer's notice dated 21.06.2018 to the KL Society calling upon them to revoke the relieving order and continue the petitioner up to the age of 60 years. The KL Society was also called upon to correct the anomaly in pay fixation and pay the difference in salary together with all benefits from 01.01.2006 onwards and to release all withheld increments in his favour. The KL 13 Society issued a reply dated 17.07.2018 repudiating the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the impugned relieving order as well as the rejection of claim of the petitioner, he is before this Court by way of the present petition. In W.P.No.103782/2019
In this petition, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the year 1984 in Mechanical Engineering Department of the KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belagavi, which is run and managed by the KL Society, Belagavi. On 01.10.1993, he was promoted as a Senior Lecturer and as an Assistant Professor on 02.02.1996. Though, he was made as H.O.D. of Mechanical Engineering on 30.11.2009, he was re-designated as Associate Professor on 18.04.2011.
The All India Council for Technical Education (for short 'the AICTE') issued a notification dated 05.03.2010 increasing the age of superannuation to 65 years. On 26.09.2018, the KL Society issued the relieving order to the petitioner on the ground that he had completed 58 years which was the age of his superannuation. The petitioner sent a letter dated 15.12.2018 and representation dated 14 05.01.2019 to the respondents calling upon them to permit him to work till the age of 65 years in addition to giving him all benefits that he was entitled to. Since the respondents did not comply with the said request and demand, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. In W.P.No.114853/2019
In this petition, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the year 1984 in Electrical Engineering Department of the KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belagavi, which is run and managed by the KL Society, Belagavi. On 23.07.1994, he was promoted as an Assistant Professor and as a Professor on 01.10.2006, on the condition that he had to pass Ph.D. within 4 years. On 01.12.2007, he was appointed as the Professor in the said Department.
The All India Council for Technical Education (for short 'the AICTE') issued a notification dated 05.03.2010 increasing the age of superannuation to 65 years. On 24.05.2019, the KL Society issued the relieving order to the petitioner on the ground that he had completed 58 years which was the age of his superannuation. The petitioner 15 sent a letter dated 07.09.2019 to the respondents calling upon them to permit him to work till the age of 65 years in addition to giving him all benefits that he was entitled to. Since the respondents did not comply with the said request and demand, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
Non-teaching staff In W.P.No.106753/2018 In this petition, petitioner was appointed as peon on 15.10.1990 in the KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belagavi, which is run and managed by the Karnataka Law Society, Belagavi. His services were extended from time to time up to 07.04.1999 on which day, his services were confirmed by the Board of Management. On 01.07.1999, he was promoted as a Helper and thereafter, as a mechanic on 30.07.2005, in the E & C Department.
On 24.06.2018, the relieving order was issued by the KL Society on the ground that he had attained the age of 58 years which was the age of superannuation. Despite the petitioner submitting representation dated 14.09.2018, seeking increase in the age of superannuation up to 60 16 years in terms of the G.O. dated 27.07.2008, the respondents did not comply with the said requests and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
In W.P.No.102838/2018
In this petition, petitioner was appointed as peon on 03.08.1985 in the KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belagavi, which is run and managed by the Karnataka Law Society, Belagavi. His services were extended from time to time up to 22.02.1999 on which day, his services were confirmed by the Board of Management.
On 29.01.2017, the relieving order was issued by the KL Society on the ground that he had attained the age of 58 years which was the age of superannuation. Despite the petitioner submitting representation dated 16.04.2018, seeking increase in the age of superannuation up to 60 years in terms of the G.O. dated 27.07.2008, the respondents did not comply with the said requests and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
17In W.P.No.113094/2014
In this petition, petitioner was appointed as peon on 30.10.1992 in the KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belagavi, which is run and managed by the Karnataka Law Society, Belagavi. His services were extended from time to time and confirmed by the Board of Management.
On 31.05.2014, the relieving order was issued by the KL Society on the ground that he had attained the age of 58 years which was the age of superannuation. Despite the petitioner submitting representation dated 25.09.2014, seeking increase in the age of superannuation up to 60 years in terms of the G.O. dated 27.07.2008, the respondents did not comply with the said requests and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
In W.P.No.114531/2019
In this petition, petitioner was appointed as peon on 16.07.1990 in the KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belagavi, which is run and managed by the Karnataka Law Society, Belagavi. His services were extended from time to time up to 22.03.1999, on which day, his services were 18 confirmed by the Board of Management. On 01.07.1999, he was promoted as a Attender and thereafter, as a mechanic on 01.06.2006.
On 26.03.2019, the relieving order was issued by the KL Society on the ground that he had attained the age of 58 years which was the age of superannuation. Despite the petitioner submitting representation dated 18.07.2019, seeking increase in the age of superannuation up to 60 years in terms of the G.O. dated 27.07.2008, the respondents did not comply with the said requests and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
In W.P.No.102837/2018
In this petition, petitioner was appointed as peon on 09.07.1980 in the KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belagavi, which is run and managed by the Karnataka Law Society, Belagavi. His services were extended from time to time up to 22.02.1999 on which day, his services were confirmed by the Board of Management.
On 27.11.2017, the relieving order was issued by the KL Society on the ground that he had attained the age of 19 58 years which was the age of superannuation. Despite the petitioner submitting representation dated 01.12.2017 seeking increase in the age of superannuation up to 60 years in terms of the G.O. dated 27.07.2008, the respondents did not comply with the said requests and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
In W.P.No.108643/2018
In this petition, petitioner was appointed as an Electrician on 14.02.1981 in the KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belagavi, which is run and managed by the Karnataka Law Society, Belagavi. His services were extended from time to time till they were confirmed by the Board of Management. On 05.04.1984, he was promoted as Assistant Instructor and thereafter, as Instructor on 16.11.1996 and subsequently, as Foreman on 17.12.2009.
On 02.01.2012, the relieving order was issued by the KL Society on the ground that he had attained the age of 58 years which was the age of superannuation. Despite the petitioner submitting representation dated 06.01.2012, seeking increase in the age of superannuation up to 60 20 years in terms of the G.O. dated 27.07.2008, the respondents rejected the said request on 21.02.2012 and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
3. The Vishveshwaraiah Technological University (VTU) is also arrayed as a party to all the petitions. In its statement of objections, the VTU has specifically stated that the GIT is affiliated to the VTU. It is also stated that the pay scale is decided by the Management of KL Society. It is further stated that the KL Society being the appointing authorities of their employees, the petitioners herein, their services are regulated by the KL Society Rules and VTU has no role to play in fixation of pay scales and service conditions of employees of GIT, viz., the petitioners herein. The VTU has also stated that the retirement age of the employees is also fixed by GIT itself.
4. So also, the AICTE has filed its statement of objections / Affidavit interalia stating that AICTE is a statutory body constituted under the AICTE Act, 1987. It is stated that the AICTE has formulated the regulations 21 regarding pay scales, service conditions, qualifications etc., for staff in technical institutions. It is also stated that the 6th pay commission was extended only to Government and Aided Institutions.
5. The AICTE has specifically stated that its regulations governing pay scale superannuation etc., will not come into force automatically and that since the Management are the appointing authorities in case of unaided Institutions, the respective Managements will have to take a decision by making suitable amendments in their respective service regulations. It is also stated that there is an obligation on the part of the Institutions to implement the AICTE Regulations and if the same are not implemented, penal consequences will follow.
6. In the statement of objections filed by the KL Society and GIT, the following defences / contentions are put forth by them as under:-
(i) A perusal of the prayers sought for in the petitions will indicate that no reliefs are sought for against the State, Visweshwaraiah Technological University (VTU) or the All 22 India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) who are also parties to the petitions. The only prayers sought for in the petitions are against the KL Society. In this context, it is contended that the KL Society is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and consequently, the petitions are not maintainable and are liable to be rejected in limine.
(ii) The AICTE which is established under the AICTE Act, 1987 has been conferred with the power to make regulations to carryout the purposes of the Act. Pursuant thereto, AICTE (pay scales, service conditions etc.,) Regulations, 2010 were notified which provide for applicability of the scheme. As per the said Regulations, it was for the respective State Governments to adopt and accept the pay scales and its applicability to AICTE Approved Institutions. In this regard, the AICTE issued a Notification dated 05.03.2010. By Gazette Notification dated 07.03.2011 issued by the Government of Karnataka in relation to revised pay scales, it was made clear that the said scheme will apply only to teachers, librarians and physical education personnel of Government, Aided and 23 University constituent Engineering colleges under the control of the Department of Higher Education. It is contended that the revised pay scale was not made applicable to private Engineering colleges in the State including colleges run by the KL Society. It is also clear from the aforesaid Government Order dated 07.03.2011 that other terms and conditions of service stipulated in the AICTE Notification dated 05.03.2010 have not been adopted for implementation even in respect of Government controlled Institutions to which they apply and at any rate, the same would not apply to the KL Society and the Engineering Colleges run by it.
(iii) It is contended that pursuant to Board Resolution dated 22.01.2011 passed by the KL Society, it was resolved to accept the revised pay scales as per the AICTE 6th Pay Commission recommendation (excluding allowances) w.e.f. 01.01.2010. The petitioners have accepted the said decision and submitted an Undertaking in this regard. It is therefore contended that the petitioners are not entitled to any arrears of pay as sought for by them. 24
(iv) The claim of the petitioners for enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years is liable to be rejected; In this context, it is contended that the conditions of service of the employees of the KL Society are governed by the KL Society Service Rules as amended from time to time. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the Government order dated 10.07.2008 is untenable.
Having regard to the fact that the said Government order applies only to employees working in local bodies and Aided Educational Institutions. Gogte Institute of Technology wherein the petitioners are working is established by the KL Society and the said Institutions is neither a local body nor admitted to grant-in-aid and hence, it is not aided Educational Institutions. The said Government order does not apply to the petitioner since the Institution where they were employed do not come within the scope and ambit of the aforesaid Government Order. On the other hand, the petitioners are governed by the service rules of the KL Society which stipulate the age of superannuation as 58 years and not 60 years. Under these circumstances, the claim of the petitioners for enhancement 25 of the age of superannuation to 60 years is liable to be rejected.
(v) The respondents have also produced a copy of the Government order dated 31.01.2011 whereby the age of retirement was made applicable to colleges owned by the Universities as well as the Government, private aided Engineering colleges only. In this context, it is contended that the Institution wherein the petitioners are employed is not an aided Institution covered by this Government order also and consequently, the service rules of the KL Society prescribing the age of the retirement at 58 years would prevail and as such, even this contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is liable to be rejected.
(vi) It is contended that the petitioners were appointed as per their respective appointment orders, which prescribe that their services would be governed by the KL Society Service Rules as may be amended from time to time. It is therefore contended that having accepted the said terms and conditions of appointments, petitioners are estopped from contending that KL Society Service Rules are not applicable to them.
26
Accordingly, the respondents have sought for dismissal of the petitions.
7. I have heard the petitioner / party-in-person in W.P.No.106179/2018 and petitioner / party-in-person in W.P.No.113094/2014 as well as the respective counsel in the connected writ petitions and perused the material on record.
8. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petitions and referring to the documents produced along with the petitions, petitioner / party-in- person in W.P.No.106179/2018 placed reliance on the following decisions:-
(i) State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh - (2017) 1 SCC 148;
(ii) Hariprakash & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Others - W.P.No.805-824/2014 & connected matters dated 29.12.2016;
(iii) Dr.R.Halesha vs. State of Karnataka -
W.P.No.13449/2011 & connected matters
dated 22.06.2011;
27
(iv) Secretary Mahatma Gandhi Mission vs. Bharatiya Kamgar Sena & Others - Civil Appeal No.115-116/2017 dated 05.01.2017;
(v) D.Y.Patil College of Engineering vs. AICTE - W.P.No.1262/2018 dated 07.09.2018;
(vi) Marwari Balika Vidyalaya vs. Asha Srivatsava & Others - Civil Appeal No.9166/2013 dated 14.02.2019;
(vii) Dharmastala Manjunatheshwara Education Society vs. Bharati -
W.A.No.100667/2015 dated 18.12.2015;
9. In addition to reiterating the various contentions / defences urged in the statement of objections and the documents produced along with it, learned Senior counsel Sri.Anant Mandagi along with the learned counsel Sri.Pradeep Sawkar and Sri.Pramod V.Kathavi appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents i.e., KL Society and GIT, placed reliance on the following decisions;
(i) Bharathidasan University vs. AICTE & Others - AIR 2001 SC 2861;
(ii) Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd., - AIR 2003 SC 511;
28
10. The petitioners contended that the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short ' the Act of 1983') is applicable to Gogte Institute of Technology, Belagavi, run by the KL Society where all the petitioners were employed. It is contended that since the provisions of the said Act of 1983 are applicable to the petitioners, they are entitled to the reliefs sought for by them. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner the Act of 1983 is not applicable to Educational Institutions insofar as mattes pertaining to colleges and Institutions which are dealt within the AICTE Act, 1987. In this context, it is relevant to state that it is not in dispute that the AICTE Act is applicable to KL Society and the Gogte Institute of Technology. The issue in controversy is with regard to applicability of the Notifications and Regulations issued under the AICTE Act as well as the Government Orders in relation to age of superannuation and pay fixation to the KL Society and GIT which is not a Government or Aided Educational Institutions. In other words, the issue is whether the GIT which is governed by the provisions of the 29 AICTE Act, the Regulations and Notifications issued by the AICTE are applicable to KL Society and GIT or not.
11. Section 1(3)(iv) (d-a) of the Act of 1983, reads as follows:-
"It applies to all educational institutions and tutorial institutions in the State except
(iv) insofar as matters pertaining to colleges and Intsitutions are dealt within, (d-a) the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (Central Act 52 of 1987);
12. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision clearly indicates that the said Act of 1983 is not applicable to the KL Society and GIT which are governed by the AICTE Act. Under these circumstances, the said contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners regarding applicability of the said Act of 1983 to the petitioners is hereby rejected.
13. As stated supra, the KL Society and GIT are governed by the provisions of the AICTE Act, 1987. However, the question still remains as to whether the Regulations and notifications with regard to age of 30 superannuation and pay fixation apply to KL Society and GIT.
14. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the AICTE which is established under the AICTE Act, 1987 has been conferred with the power to make regulations to carryout the purposes of the Act. Pursuant thereto, AICTE (pay scales, service conditions etc.,) Regulations, 2010 were notified which provide for applicability of the scheme. As per the said Regulations, it was for the respective State Governments to adopt and accept the pay scales and its applicability to AICTE Approved Institutions. In this regard, the AICTE issued a Notification dated 05.03.2010, wherein, it is specifically stated that the scheme under the said Regulations had to be adopted by the respective State Governments. By Gazette Notification dated 07.03.2011 issued by the Government of Karnataka in relation to revised pay scales, it was made clear that the said scheme will apply only to teachers, librarians and physical education personnel of Government, Aided and University constituent Engineering 31 colleges under the control of the Department of Higher Education. The scheme was not made applicable to private Engineering colleges in the State including colleges run by the KL Society. It is also clear from the aforesaid Government Order dated 07.03.2011 that other terms and conditions of service stipulated in the AICTE Notification dated 05.03.2010 have not been adopted for implementation even in respect of Government controlled Institutions to which they apply and at any rate, the same would not apply to the KL Society and the Engineering Colleges run by it including the GIT.
15. The material on record also indicates that pursuant to Board Resolution dated 22.01.2011 passed by the KL Society, it was resolved to accept the revised pay scales as per the AICTE 6th Pay Commission recommendation (excluding allowances) w.e.f. 01.01.2010. The petitioners have accepted the said decision and submitted an Undertaking in this regard. It is therefore clear that the petitioners are not entitled to any arrears of pay as sought for by them.
32
16. The material on record also indicates that the claim of the petitioners for enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years is liable to be rejected; In this context, it is seen that the conditions of service of the employees of the KL Society are governed by the KL Society Service Rules as amended from time to time. The reliance placed by the petitioners on the Government order dated 10.07.2008 is untenable having regard to the fact that the said Government order applies only to employees working in local bodies and Aided Educational Institutions. The GIT, wherein the petitioners are working is established by the KL Society and the said Institutions is neither a local body nor admitted to grant-in- aid and also not an Aided Educational Institutions. Accordingly, the said Government order does not apply to the petitioners since the KL Society and GIT where they were employed do not come within the scope and ambit of the aforesaid Government Order. On the other hand, the petitioners are governed by the service rules of the KL Society which stipulate the age of superannuation as 58 years and not 60 years. Under these circumstances, the 33 claim of the petitioners for enhancement of the age of superannuation to 60 years is liable to be rejected.
17. The Government order dated 31.01.2011 indicates that the age of retirement was made applicable to colleges owned by the Universities as well as the Government, private aided Engineering colleges only. In this context, it is seen that KL Society and GIT wherein the petitioners were employed is not an aided Institution covered by this Government order also and consequently, the service rules of the KL Society prescribing the age of the retirement at 58 years would prevail and as such, even this contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is liable to be rejected.
18. The Affidavit filed on behalf of AICTE will indicate that it is categorically stated therein that the AICTE Regulations / Notifications governing pay scale, superannuation etc., will not come into force automatically. It is further stated that since the Managements of the Institutions are the appointing authorities, in case of unaided Institutions, the concerned Managements have to 34 take a decision to implement the AICTE Regulations by making suitable amendments in their respective service regulations.
19. A perusal of the aforesaid Affidavit will clearly establish that in the absence of corresponding amendments in the service rules made by the Management i.e., the KL Society, the AICTE Regulations / Notifications governing pay scale, superannuation etc., will not come into force automatically and consequently, the petitioners who claim enhancement in the age of superannuation and increase in pay scale on the basis of AICTE Regulations / Notifications are not entitled to place reliance upon the same in support of their respective claims. Under these circumstances, having regard to the categorical and unimpeached statement made by the AICTE on oath that the KL Society and GIT have neither adopted the AICTE Regulations / Notifications regarding superannuation, pay scale etc., nor have they made corresponding suitable amendments to the KL Society Service Rules, it cannot be 35 said that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the AICTE Regulations / Notifications.
20. Though, it is stated in the aforesaid Affidavit by the AICTE that as per the clause - 7.4 of the approval process Hand book for 2019-20, there is an obligation cast upon the KL Society and GIT to implement the AICTE Regulations, the said clause will not come to the aid of the petitioners since the said clause is prospective and cannot be said to be retrospective so as to apply to the petitioners; so also, there is nothing to show that the KL Society and the GIT have implemented the AICTE Regulations so far; Thirdly, even if they are implemented, since the implementation would be subsequent to the age of superannuation of all the petitioners, they would not be entitled to the benefit under such implementation. Under these circumstances, even the said contention urged on behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted.
21. The material on record also indicates that the petitioners were appointed as per their respective appointment orders and promoted as per the respective 36 promotions orders, all of which prescribe that their services would be governed by the KL Society Service Rules as may be amended from time to time. It is therefore clear that having accepted the said terms and conditions of appointments and promotions, petitioners are estopped from contending that KL Society Service Rules are not applicable to them. Accordingly, the claims of the petitioners are barred by the principles of estoppel, acquiescence, abandonment and waiver.
22. Though this Court permitted all parties to file their written submissions, it is seen that the petitioner / party-in- person in W.P.No.106179/2018 has filed several additional documents in support of his contentions in addition to the citations relied upon by him. Without adverting to all the decisions, suffice it to state that the facts and circumstances obtaining in the said decisions were entirely different and the same are distinguishable and do not apply to the facts of the instant cases. So also, in the absence of the additional documents filed by the petitioner / party-in- person, being produced in accordance with law and without 37 corresponding pleadings in that regard, the other contentions and documents relied upon by the said petitioner cannot be treated as part of the material on record and cannot be looked into for the purpose of adjudication of the present petitions.
23. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petitions and the same are hereby dismissed.
No costs.
SD JUDGE Srl.